4 ms·

Hubris. Is the same mindset that leads to socialism, central planning, social darwinism, etc. The temptation of "theory" without the suffering from pesky realit

by chermi 6mo ago

Hubris. Is the same mindset that leads to socialism, central planning, social darwinism, etc. The temptation of "theory" without the suffering from pesky reality.

ehnto 6mo ago
"All phenomena involved in the functional operation of the social mechanism are measurable" From the article, reminded me that the complexities and nuance of life at the ground level really are lost on some. Even if you genuinely could measure every single detail of life and the forces that move the economy, no committee of experts could ever hope to reason through the data and make coherent solutions that actually survive reality.
pembrook 6mo ago
How ironic that you were downvoted. HN is full of left-populists these days and any slightly negative mention of socialism or central planning (their equivalent utopian vision) triggers them. I think this suggests it's more than just hubris, it's religion. These aren't just ideas, they are belief systems and identities for people. Hence why someone would downvote a benign internet comment like yours. The steady decline of traditional religions has left people searching for meaning in other ways, and it has manifested in all sorts of bizarre belief systems and behavior over the past 200ish years, technocracy being one of them.
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
- AngryData 6mo ago
  I would equate similar values to people who think socialism and central planning are somehow linked and share the same criticisms. Probably 90% of criticism I hear about socialism is complete and utter nonsense. Co-op businesses are socialist ideals in practice and co-ops have consistently gained market share over the last 80+ years, and it is neither linked to or shares any of the problems as central planning. Im all for reading criticism about economic models, but it seems like the vast majority of it has nothing to do with anything Marx proposed or idealized and is just translocated hatred of authoritarian policies which is far more often in opposition to Marxist principles than supporting them. Socialist ideaology far more directly supports democratic workplaces and democratic economic decisions than centralized leadership and control.
  - chermi 6mo ago
    Well you're criticizing shitty thinkers rightfully w.r.t to co-ops; they're great, they aren't top-down. But you're committing the same error. Co-ops are completely compatible with capitalism so holding them up as contrast doesn't make much sense. Show me non-authoritarian Marxism at the scale Marx so confidently predicted. Marx simply had a flawed understanding of economics and it's time we moved on. We have the data supporting the decision to do so. Usually when a theory makes completely incorrect predictions repeatedly, we abandon it. But apparently marxists know better than everyone. Do they have some secret data set?
    - AngryData 6mo ago
      Something exists in capitalism so therefore it can't be socialism? And im not going to get into another circular reasoning of "It didn't exist in that form before therefore it is impossible now." At no point have you pointed out anything Marx supported that is a problem other than a generalized brush of everything. 90% of Marxist work is a study of capitalism, much of which we still hold true today, so to me you look like everyone else that blindly dismisses what he said without learning what he even did or said.
      - chermi 6mo ago
        I didn't say it wasn't socialism. I said it wasn't a counterexample. As for whether you still think it's worth taking Marx seriously as an economist, I'm guessing you'd laugh at someone citing Smith. Yet one had a better track record than the other. My point was simply that a theory should be judged on its merits, it's predictions, it's actual outcomes.
RandomLensman 6mo ago
Central planning of some sort is pretty standard in corporations, I'd say.
- api 6mo ago
  There’s multiple corporations. When you have state level central planning there’s no adversarial check or feedback mechanism. Nothing challenges it to see if it’s actually doing a good job. Of course this is also a strong argument for antitrust. In some markets today there is basically one corporation or a few that seem more interlocked than competing. That starts to be indistinguishable from Soviet bureaus.
  - RandomLensman 6mo ago
    There are multiple nations and states with feedback mechanism between them (see the cold war, for example).

by chermi 6mo ago

Hubris. Is the same mindset that leads to socialism, central planning, social darwinism, etc. The temptation of "theory" without the suffering from pesky reality.

ehnto 6mo ago

"All phenomena involved in the functional operation of the social mechanism are measurable" From the article, reminded me that the complexities and nuance of life at the ground level really are lost on some. Even if you genuinely could measure every single detail of life and the forces that move the economy, no committee of experts could ever hope to reason through the data and make coherent solutions that actually survive reality.

pembrook 6mo ago

How ironic that you were downvoted. HN is full of left-populists these days and any slightly negative mention of socialism or central planning (their equivalent utopian vision) triggers them. I think this suggests it's more than just hubris, it's religion. These aren't just ideas, they are belief systems and identities for people. Hence why someone would downvote a benign internet comment like yours. The steady decline of traditional religions has left people searching for meaning in other ways, and it has manifested in all sorts of bizarre belief systems and behavior over the past 200ish years, technocracy being one of them.

deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]
AngryData 6mo ago
I would equate similar values to people who think socialism and central planning are somehow linked and share the same criticisms. Probably 90% of criticism I hear about socialism is complete and utter nonsense. Co-op businesses are socialist ideals in practice and co-ops have consistently gained market share over the last 80+ years, and it is neither linked to or shares any of the problems as central planning. Im all for reading criticism about economic models, but it seems like the vast majority of it has nothing to do with anything Marx proposed or idealized and is just translocated hatred of authoritarian policies which is far more often in opposition to Marxist principles than supporting them. Socialist ideaology far more directly supports democratic workplaces and democratic economic decisions than centralized leadership and control.
- chermi 6mo ago
  Well you're criticizing shitty thinkers rightfully w.r.t to co-ops; they're great, they aren't top-down. But you're committing the same error. Co-ops are completely compatible with capitalism so holding them up as contrast doesn't make much sense. Show me non-authoritarian Marxism at the scale Marx so confidently predicted. Marx simply had a flawed understanding of economics and it's time we moved on. We have the data supporting the decision to do so. Usually when a theory makes completely incorrect predictions repeatedly, we abandon it. But apparently marxists know better than everyone. Do they have some secret data set?
  - AngryData 6mo ago
    Something exists in capitalism so therefore it can't be socialism? And im not going to get into another circular reasoning of "It didn't exist in that form before therefore it is impossible now." At no point have you pointed out anything Marx supported that is a problem other than a generalized brush of everything. 90% of Marxist work is a study of capitalism, much of which we still hold true today, so to me you look like everyone else that blindly dismisses what he said without learning what he even did or said.
    - chermi 6mo ago
      I didn't say it wasn't socialism. I said it wasn't a counterexample. As for whether you still think it's worth taking Marx seriously as an economist, I'm guessing you'd laugh at someone citing Smith. Yet one had a better track record than the other. My point was simply that a theory should be judged on its merits, it's predictions, it's actual outcomes.

RandomLensman 6mo ago

Central planning of some sort is pretty standard in corporations, I'd say.

api 6mo ago
There’s multiple corporations. When you have state level central planning there’s no adversarial check or feedback mechanism. Nothing challenges it to see if it’s actually doing a good job. Of course this is also a strong argument for antitrust. In some markets today there is basically one corporation or a few that seem more interlocked than competing. That starts to be indistinguishable from Soviet bureaus.
- RandomLensman 6mo ago
  There are multiple nations and states with feedback mechanism between them (see the cold war, for example).